Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Honest -- I don't know. Because I think it's impossible really to delineate it in such a way.

Here's what I know about the movements of 110:The first movement is clear.The second movement is clear.After that, it's up for grabs.

Last movement is crystal-clear; we've had this discussion before, and I don't accept that there's any ambiguity.

The last movement begins at the "Adagio ma non troppo".

The form of the last movement is startlingly original. But let's not confuse that with the straightforward question of where it starts. And I'm not even getting into whether there are "actually" more than three movements in this sonata.

(On the other hand the question of why the Ab-minor section is written with only six flats remains deeply puzzling to me.)

I've sometimes heard (and sometimes thought) that a disadvantage to hearing all 24 Chopin preludes at once is that the slow pieces tend to dominate the experience. Many of them are significantly longer in duration than the average, and I'm not sure the balance is quite right for hearing all 24. I'm thinking about Db, Ab (and F# and Bb if I remember right) especially.

I don't tend to have this problem with the Shostakovich op.34 preludes, btw.

It's also interesting btw to think about Scriabin along these lines. His op.11 is preludes in all 24 keys, but I just found out that his *other* early preludes are also one in each key, scattered among different opuses. Interesting to think about whether the op.11 make more sense to hear at once than the other scattered 24 preludes.

Also interesting to think about Rachmaninoff, whose 24 preludes, one in each key, are distributed among three opuses. Does it "make sense" to hear all of his op.23 or 32 at once?

I've sometimes heard (and sometimes thought) that a disadvantage to hearing all 24 Chopin preludes at once is that the slow pieces tend to dominate the experience. Many of them are significantly longer in duration than the average, and I'm not sure the balance is quite right for hearing all 24. I'm thinking about Db, Ab (and F# and Bb if I remember right) especially.

I don't tend to have this problem with the Shostakovich op.34 preludes, btw.

It's also interesting btw to think about Scriabin along these lines. His op.11 is preludes in all 24 keys, but I just found out that his *other* early preludes are also one in each key, scattered among different opuses. Interesting to think about whether the op.11 make more sense to hear at once than the other scattered 24 preludes.

Also interesting to think about Rachmaninoff, whose 24 preludes, one in each key, are distributed among three opuses. Does it "make sense" to hear all of his op.23 or 32 at once?

-Jason

I don't think I've ever sat down to hear just one or two of Chopin's Op.28 - it's always been all 24 - except when I was comparing different recordings. For me, it's not a satisfying experience to listen to a few at a time, because the vast majority are so short that they're almost over before they've begun, and I feel like they're not 'complete' by themselves. But I never get the feeling that the slow preludes dominate (except from Grigory Sokolov, who does tend to drag out the slower ones....) - hearing the whole set from a great pianist is one of the most satisfying and rounded Chopin experiences. Pianists like Cortot, Argerich and Pollini keep things moving along satisfyingly and logically, without over-egging the pudding of the slower preludes. For me, the Raindrop (No.15) marks the end of the 'slow movement', and No.16's furious outburst is the start of the inexorable trajectory towards the 'finale' of the relentlessly agitated No.24 culminating in the pounding low Ds.

Rachmaninoff's 24 Preludes are totally different. For a start, the famous C sharp minor Op.3/2 doesn't really belong to the others, being an early piece as one of the Morceaux de fantaisie: the composer later on decided to emulate his hero Chopin by writing 23 other Preludes to make up the 'complete set'. But even so, the Op.32 ones are in his slightly later style compared to the Op.23 ones. Therefore, coupled with the fact that they're also all completely self-contained and most are a lot longer than any of Chopin's, there's no reason to play the 24 as a set - and I've never heard any pianist do so. (Whereas I've heard quite a few play the Etudes-tableaux - Op.33 or Op.39, or even both, as a set).

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I'm one of those who prefers hearing a selection of the Chopin Preludes. IMO, hearing all of them in a row is enjoyable but tiring in the same sense as having a bunch of short conversations about disparate topics, rather than having one lengthy conversation that really "goes somewhere" while still continually referring back to its main points (like a Sonata or a Ballade). [I can anticipate complaints that the set DOES go somewhere, because such an expansive range of emotions are explored, but from my perspective, it doesn't go anywhere or formally cohere because there's no thematic continuity]. Besides mere technique, I very much enjoy hearing how a pianist has organized the larger-scale architecture of a piece, and in Chopin's Preludes (and in most sets of "smaller" preludes), if a pianist has the technique, the pieces mostly just play themselves, without any architectural thought necessary.

But even so, the Op.32 ones are in his slightly later style compared to the Op.23 ones.

Very true.

Quote:

Therefore, coupled with the fact that they're also all completely self-contained and most are a lot longer than any of Chopin's, there's no reason to play the 24 as a set - and I've never heard any pianist do so.

Max Harrison's book on Rachmaninoff has some interesting remarks on the Preludes.

Rachmaninoff never played either opus complete, in fact he appears never to have performed Op 23 Nos.7 or 8 or Op. 32 Nos. 7 or 9. So clearly he didn't conceive either opus as a performing set. OTH, there is quite a sense of finality about the Db from Op. 32, and therefore no surprise that it comes last.

So if Rachmaninoff didn't envision them as performing cycles, he may very well have envisioned them as cycles in a more abstract, spiritual sense.

Like you, bennevis, I've never heard (or heard of) either opus played complete in concert, but on a studio recording in the comfort of one's home -Santiago Rodriguez has a fine performance of the Op. 32, which moves inexorably towards the final peroration of the Db- it can be quite a different matter.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

I heard a recital by Vladimir Shakin around six ago at the Mannes IKIF where he played all 24 Rachmaninov Preludes ordered by keys and not by opus. Here he is playing two of them but not from that recital:

Rachmaninoff never played either opus complete, in fact he appears never to have performed Op 23 Nos.7 or 8 or Op. 32 Nos. 7 or 9. So clearly he didn't conceive either opus as a performing set. OTH, there is quite a sense of finality about the Db from Op. 32, and therefore no surprise that it comes last.

So if Rachmaninoff didn't envision them as performing cycles, he may very well have envisioned them as cycles in a more abstract, spiritual sense.

Like you, bennevis, I've never heard (or heard of) either opus played complete in concert, but on a studio recording in the comfort of one's home -Santiago Rodriguez has a fine performance of the Op. 32, which moves inexorably towards the final peroration of the Db- it can be quite a different matter.

I've often thought that Rachmaninoff got the idea of that air of 'finality' of his last Prelude from Chopin, substituting pounding chords for Chopin's pounding single notes. Shostakovich's conclusion to the last Fugue of his own 24 Preludes & Fugues also has the same idea......

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

[quote=argerichfan]I've often thought that Rachmaninoff got the idea of that air of 'finality' of his last Prelude from Chopin, substituting pounding chords for Chopin's pounding single notes. Shostakovich's conclusion to the last Fugue of his own 24 Preludes & Fugues also has the same idea......

That Shostakovich ending is amazing, isn't it?

There's a difference though between rounding the work out with a real ending, and intending the whole thing to be played straight-through. Take Book I of the WTC. It has a real beginning (C major prelude) and a real ending (B minor fugue, whose subject uses all 12 tones). But very few people expect that cycle of 24 to be played in sequence....

there is quite a sense of finality about the Db from Op. 32, and therefore no surprise that it comes last.

I love that the Db from Op. 32 quotes Op. 3#2, completing the bookends!

(Apologies if this has been mentioned already, I just skimmed the thread real quick.)

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: bennevis

I've often thought that Rachmaninoff got the idea of that air of 'finality' of his last Prelude from Chopin, substituting pounding chords for Chopin's pounding single notes. Shostakovich's conclusion to the last Fugue of his own 24 Preludes & Fugues also has the same idea......

It's possible but also possibly just coincidence. Countless pieces end in a similar fashion.

I've often thought that Rachmaninoff got the idea of that air of 'finality' of his last Prelude from Chopin, substituting pounding chords for Chopin's pounding single notes. Shostakovich's conclusion to the last Fugue of his own 24 Preludes & Fugues also has the same idea......

I think it's just a coincidence. The pounding chords in the final page serve to reiterate the Op.3 No.2 theme of four notes slinking down in semitones, and their final transformation to a D flat major flourish. Op.32 No.13 features a confrontation between the two main Op.3 No.2 themes of the initial falling minor sixth and the four descending notes (pessimism, crisis) and the Op.32 No.13 fanfare-like theme (optimism, faith). The falling minor sixth is pulled around in a turbulent passage before being transformed in the final page into a triumphant falling MAJOR sixth, but still with the stubborn descending notes beneath until they finally relent.

Originally Posted By: argerichfan

Max Harrison's book on Rachmaninoff has some interesting remarks on the Preludes.

Rachmaninoff never played either opus complete, in fact he appears never to have performed Op 23 Nos.7 or 8 or Op. 32 Nos. 7 or 9. So clearly he didn't conceive either opus as a performing set. OTH, there is quite a sense of finality about the Db from Op. 32, and therefore no surprise that it comes last.

So if Rachmaninoff didn't envision them as performing cycles, he may very well have envisioned them as cycles in a more abstract, spiritual sense.

Like you, bennevis, I've never heard (or heard of) either opus played complete in concert, but on a studio recording in the comfort of one's home -Santiago Rodriguez has a fine performance of the Op. 32, which moves inexorably towards the final peroration of the Db- it can be quite a different matter.

That is part of why I think Op.32 deserves to be played as a set. Apart from an abrupt shift from No.2 to No.3, every other transition ensures that when you play them in order, a prominent final note from the end of one piece appears at or near the beginning of the following piece, cleverly encouraging the listener to feel a connection. Also I do feel an emotional connection and logic to the sequence of pieces: an arc, a progression, a mosaic story. For example, the first page of No.4 has a passage that very closely anticipates one in the first page of No.10, but while No.4 seems to mark a departure and a loosening of ties, with the associated uncertainty of the unknown, No.10 marks a return home and a closing of ties, with the familiarity of the known. And I agree, Jason, that the last few pieces do have an inexorable flow to them. At the bottom of this post I share my personal titles for these pieces, as spoiler text for anyone who finds such things absurd or annoying. Whether or not listeners have similar impressions is not important, but I think such sets of pieces are more compelling to hear when the performer does have some kind of emotional/narrative logic in mind.

I think that many "connections" that are seen in published sets are really a kind of musical pareidolia, much like seeing faces in clouds. Nothing wrong with that, and it can enrich experience, but mistaking it for actual fact can be troublesome.

I doubt Chopin expected anyone to play his Preludes as a complete set, and as others have pointed out, there is no evidence he played more than a few at a time. He performed in an age when audience listening standards were quite different. At least at the opera, you could eat, talk, play cards, visit the chamber pot, even leave the hall and come back. Whatever was happening on stage was often incidental to the socializing. Piano recitals were probably more formal but not much more so. You had to wait until Wagner before music was performed in a darkened hall and the audience was expected to be reverent and silent (it was Wagner after all - his genius demanded respect, IHHO).

The important thing is that Chopin composed them as a complete set. They have one opus number, they explore all the major and minor keys, they follow the circle of fifths and alternate from major to minor. His inspiration was no doubt two composers he adored: Bach and Hummel, both of whom composed pieces in all 24 keys. The Hummel preludes had to be fresh in Chopin's mind in particular. They are each very short and they contain hardly a musical thought in any of them. They are academic exercises intended to explore the tonal properties of the keys on the piano, and they can be played quickly as a set. I suspect Chopin set out in his Preludes to transform the genre entirely into something deeply musical, just as he had transformed the Nocturne invented by John Field, and transformed the etudes being published by JB Cramer, Carl Czerny and others. Also - and this is important -Chopin wanted to explore the different tonal qualities of the 24 keys. Remember that the pianos of Chopin's days were tuned very differently from now, and that the key of F# minor sounded much more remote from C major than it does to us today. Tones we take as discordant against other tones sounded wonderfully harmonious on Chopin's piano, and the reverse was true - some chords which work well in our equal temperament tuning clashed somewhat on 1830's pianos.

Here is a performance of the Preludes using Chopin's Unequal Temperament. Notice how the second Prelude, which sounds notoriously discordant on modern pianos, sounds much more agreeable with Unequal Temperament.

As to playing them today as a complete set - of course, why not? The best argument for doing so is the recording by Grigory Sokolov. While I agree with Bennevis that Sokolov takes tremendous liberties with tempo and cadences, he has such control of tone that his concept works very well with Chopin. Even the slow Preludes, taken much more slowly by Sokolov, are completely convincing. It is hard to turn away from this recording and his live performances must offer a fantastic tonal wonderland for Chopin devotees.

The important thing is that Chopin composed them as a complete set. They have one opus number, they explore all the major and minor keys, they follow the circle of fifths and alternate from major to minor. His inspiration was no doubt two composers he adored: Bach and Hummel, both of whom composed pieces in all 24 keys. The Hummel preludes had to be fresh in Chopin's mind in particular. They are each very short and they contain hardly a musical thought in any of them. They are academic exercises intended to explore the tonal properties of the keys on the piano, and they can be played quickly as a set.

I think the Hummel preludes were not intended as stand-alone pieces - I think they were probably meant to be used as either examples of or actual use for "preluding", as it was done in those days. It was a sort of warm-up or introduction to the main piece one was performing. And for that utilitarian purpose, it would be desirable for them not have too much musical content, so they wouldn't distract from what follows. Many pianists simply improvised a few bars of similar stuff for their preluding.

Albrechtsberger published some similar material in 1812. And, as one might expect, Czerny went all-out with his "The Art of Preluding" , which has 120 examples of how to do it, from the simplest cadences to relatively complex "fantasias".

I think you are right. They don't stand alone, and they don't make much of a musical statement played as a set, though I have done that just to show the tonal differences among the keys (I have my piano tuned to an unequal temperament).

I wasn't aware of the Czerny book on preluding. Thanks, He was mighty prolific. He can also be difficult to play, and the problem I have with his music is deciding whether it is worth the effort to master his compositions if the musical content is somewhat limited. If I am going to put in that much work, usually Hummel is a better option.